Media 101

Jason Michael Barker

One of the great things about the mainstream media is that you can pretty much guess what they're going to say whenever something happens, because they've been stuck with the same cliches and mistruths for years. Read long enough and you too might begin to believe that all baseball franchises are losing money or that a guy who hits .300 but never walks is a solid contributor.

One of the biggest myths out there is that teams must raise their ticket prices in order to accommodate high player salaries. An introductory economics class would clear this whole thing up -- ticket prices are reflective of supply and demand. If teams perceive that the demand for tickets exceeds the supply, it stands to reason they can charge more. Don't forget that baseball teams are profit-maximizing businesses.

Yet, the myth lives on. When the NBA's Los Angeles Lakers first signed Shaquille O'Neal to a huge contract in the summer of 1996, they also announced that the price of their cheapest ticket would nearly double from the previous season. Was this because they needed more money to pay Shaq? No. It's because signing Shaq created a tremendous demand for Lakers' tickets -- more people wanted tickets, and they were willing to pay more to get them.

Late last week, the Boston Red Sox announced that they'd be raising ticket prices for the 2001 season. They tried to hide the news by making the announcement over Thanksgiving weekend, but the media -- never ones to miss a chance to cry foul about the economics of baseball -- picked up on the story early this week.

Over on ESPN.com, resident mediot, er, columnist Sean McAdam spun this little gem: "Presumably, the price jolt was necessary to finance the pursuit of some major free-agent acquisitions." Look closely, however, and you'll find the real reason the they decided to raise their prices -- the Red Sox set a new attendance record and sold 98% of their tickets this year, indicating that yes, demand is high.

The Red Sox also had the highest average ticket price in Major League Baseball last season, which shouldn't be all that surprising when you consider that Boston is a big city (demand) yet the team plays in the smallest stadium in terms of seating capacity in baseball (supply).

If there's one thing to fault teams for in terms of ticket price increases, it's that they announce them so early. If you're planning to sign a big-name free agent -- Alex Rodriguez or Manny Ramirez, for instance -- wouldn't it make sense to raise your prices after completing the deal? If my favorite team signed Rodriguez this winter, I know I'd be more interested in buying tickets.

Of course it's possible the Red Sox don't plan on signing a big-time free agent, or they simply decided 98% attendance is all the justification they need to raise prices.

Elsewhere, there was finally some major movement on the free agent market. OK, perhaps not major movement, but at least the movement of a major free agent in Mike Mussina, who signed a six-year, $88.5M deal with the Yankees Thursday. While the consensus seems to be that baseball might as well simply hand the Yanks another World Series ring (why even bother playing the 2001 season?), I'm not so sure.

Yes, Mussina is a fabulous pitcher, and the Yankees now have four guys -- Mussina, Roger Clemens, Orlando Hernandez and Andy Pettitte -- who would be either number one or number two starters on almost any other team. But has everyone forgotten that teams also have to score runs to win games? Blame the media again for pushing the "pitching and defense wins games" line on us all these years.

In 1998, the Yankees outscored their opponents by a dominating 965-656 margin. In 1999 that differential shrunk to 900-731, and last season they outscored their opponents by just 57 runs (871 scored, 814 allowed).

And don't forget, the Yankees aren't exactly a young bunch. You know Derek Jeter, Bernie Williams and Jorge Posada are going to hit. But Tino Martinez, Paul O'Neill and Scott Brosius were terrible last season, and each has declined over the past three seasons. Further decline in 2001 seems inevitable, and it's not unreasonable to think Posada might come back to earth a bit as well.

The great irony is that the Yankees, who have won as much as they have by staying loyal to guys like David Cone, Martinez and O'Neill, have suitable replacements ready in the minors. If only they could find takers for Martinez, Brosius and Chuck Knoblauch, the Yankees could fill their infield with Nick Johnson (1B), D'Angelo Jiminez (2B) and Alfonso Soriano (3B).

There's no doubt in my mind that Johnson can out-hit Martinez, and Soriano would probably be slightly better than Brosius. Jiminez over Knoblauch isn't such a sure thing, but at the very least this trio of youngsters would save the Yankees roughly $16M in salary next season.

And just think -- by saving all that money, the Yankees would be able to lower their ticket prices...

You've heard nothing till you've heard the rumors circulating about how Jason Michael Barker ought to take over as Yankees PA announcer. Let's face it, anyone would be better than ol' whatsisname, the resuscitated corpse, that they have doing the announcing now. Send your write in votes now to jmb@strikethree.com.

Web Strikethree.com